Arun Shourie, a noted Journalist, Activist, Scholar and Columnist is the author of several books, several of them on a diverse range of subjects related to his journalistic interests, including corruption and brilliant exposé of the Indian Communist party's long-standing anti-national policies.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

A trial court in Delhi has ruled that Home Minister P Chidambaram
will not be held criminally liable for the telecom scam that unfolded in
India in 2008 when he was Finance Minister. Arun Shourie talks to NDTV
and appeals to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to act with urgency and put
the country's affairs in order.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

In this exclusive interview with CVR News channel, Arun Shourie talks
about the possibility of Narendra Modi becoming a potential candidate
for Prime Minister in 2014. He feels a political realignment can be
expected if Modi shifts base to Delhi. Shourie is certain that Modi's
leadership will electrify the BJP cadre across the country.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Bharatiya Janata Party leader Arun Shourie
has supported Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's decision of the diesel
price hike and stays neutral on FDI in aviation and retail. Speaking to
IBN18 Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep Sardesai, Shourie also said that Prime
Minister should go ahead with more reforms and take decision without
waiting for legislation.

Shourie also pointed out that adversarial politics has been taken
to an absurd level in India. "Whatever you do, I will shout against it
and then when I do the same thing you will shout against it and block
it. That is no format," he said.
Following is the full transcript of Rajdeep Sardesai's interview with Arun Shourie:Rajdeep Sardesai: Joining me now is someone who was the
face of BJP's reformist impulses and that of the NDA government under
Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He was a minister then and a BJP leader, Arun
Shourie, appreciate you're joining us here. At a time when most people
have come out in the opposition strongly against the Prime Minister and
his explanation for a diesel price hike and FDI in retail, you've been
very supportive. Am I to understand that Arun Shourie believes that what
Manmohan Singh is doing is good for the country? Arun Shourie: As far as the hike in diesel prices is
concerned, I'm personally for it. I believe that all petroleum prices
should be at their scarcity value because otherwise we are subsidizing
our import dependence. In a country where 75 pc of oil is being
imported, there is no need to go on subsidizing that, we are worsening
the situation for tomorrow in that case.
Second is that the deficits have become unmanageable. They've
become unmanageable because of this government. It disobeyed the
deception of the fiscal responsibility legislation and the Prime
Minister presided over these deficit budgets. Now the fact is that today
with a deficit of about 8.2 pc to 9 pc of the GDP, it is not
sustainable. And you look at the budget figure, in the budget it is
provided that petroleum subsidies will be Rs 43,580 crore. They're
running at a level of Rs 1,70,000 crore. How can we manage this? So, I'm
all for an increases in petroleum prices and it is only when they are
increased, and this is the third reason, that then alternate sources of
energy like solar power, wind power from biogas, from urban gas, these
will become viable. So, on that point, I'm with the Prime Minister, on
the others like FDI in aviation, that will only help a little in
consolidation, FDI in retail is neither here nor there, these
international companies are not going to come, even if they do, our
small shops are going to beat them, they've beaten these big companies
that came into retail. So, on the first point, I'm with the Prime
Minister, and I didn't say, as was quoted, that the Prime Minister has
shown his strength. I said that the Prime Minister's Office has
unlimited strength in India and for the first time on economic status,
the Prime Minister has taken one step.
Rajdeep Sardesai: So, let me look at the exact quote
Sir, because the interpretation that is being given is that Arun Shourie
has come out in support of Dr Manmohan Singh. You've said, 'Prime
Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has for the first time shown his strength'. I
asked this because a former colleague of Yours Mr Yashwant Sinha, the
then Finance Minister, has said that the Prime Minister must apologise
for bringing India into a 1991-like situation. Obviously you and
Yashwant Sinha then have serious differences. Arun Shourie: Not in the slightest. He's a person I
enormously respect, he's my very good friend. There's no difference. I
did not say that the Prime Minister has shown strength. This is the real
problem today Rajdeep, you say something in a whole lecture, nobody
sees it, If you're going out, somebody asks for a little bit and that is
completely turned around. I said, that I just now told you that the
office of the Prime Minister has unlimited strength and I illustrated
that by saying that Atal ji would just have to nod and those things
would get done, he would just raise his eyebrows and those things would
not get done. So also the Prime Minister of today has unlimited powers,
he has chosen not to exercise them for eight years. That is what
Yashwant Sinha has been emphasizing on that if the current situation is
due to the mismanagement of the government and the Prime Minister has
presided over a corrupt government and a government which mismanaged the
economy, so he shares the responsibility. Now whether somebody
apoligises or not is really just a way of pinpointing his
responsibility.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But what you're saying on the other
hand is that the steps that have been undertaken are necessary, that it
is a bitter pill, but it must be swollen. To that extent, the BJP
perhaps, needs to realise that that the country is going through an
economic crisis and perhaps, to appreciate that the Prime Minister has
finally chosen to bite the bullet.Arun Shourie: Please do not ask me or make me say anything
about the BJP. I will say I agree with you, I agree with the Prime
Minister that the economic situation is dire, it's his responsibility or
not is a separate matter. After all the Industrial Production index is
going down from 12 pc growth to now 2 pc growth, deficits are
increasing, our foreign exchange reserves which were 10 moths inputs
imports falling to six months imports, a current account deficit running
at 10 pc of the GDP, these are unsustainable figures, Therefore,
Rajdeep Sardesai: But would you blame the government for this or would you say the global situation is such that the government is suffering.Arun Shourie: Rajdeep you will well remember when we were
saying take urgent steps, the government was saying 'no, no, no, we are
decoupled from the world economy'. Now we're saying that it is because
of the problems in Greece that we're in trouble. So, forget this past.
My plea to everybody is the situation today is in front of us. The Prime
Minister has himself spelt out the situation in his address to the
country, and therefore, focus on the merits of each individual step. The
two of these steps were instance, I think nothing of them, one I think
is a very good step. So please focus on the steps that will be taken
from day to day and urge the government aso, please do not delay matters
now. You have a very very narrow window, not even of opportunity, but
of necessity.
Secondly, do not wait for legislation, it is not going to happen, it is not going to come about.
Rajdeep Sardesai: That's an important point, because
what you're saying is that because of the Parliament gridlock,
legislation is not going to happen, so go ahead with FDI in insurance,
FDI in pension through executive orders or through power sector reforms
which are now being talked about?Arun Shourie: Some things in power sector you can do
because of prior legislation which the government has not implemented.
But there are many things that can be done without any legislation. I'll
give you one instance, the most alarming decline has been in the index
of industrial production. Let's take defence production. In India,
because of the monopoly that we've given to the DRDO, we've fallen
behind in many respects in our defence preparedness. But outside the
government sector, great capability has been built, technical and
engineering capability. Every Defence Minister from Mr George
Fernandes's time has announced that he will rope in the skills of the
private sector. Here is a boost you can give to manufacturing here and
now, you do not require any legislation. Similarly, we are today one of
the biggest importers of defence equipment. So, like other countries
like South Africa, we have set up an offset regime that some per cent of
the purchases we make from you, you have to source from India, and it
used to be in high technology items. Now if a company even takes a chair
for its office work, we say it's offset. So make offset real, don't
make it a farce. These are things that will boost Indian manufacturing.
Rajdeep Sardesai: The big worry is the ballooning
fiscal deficit. Now you've said that you support the diesel price hike,
but many believe that what may be good economics, doesn't make good
politics. If diesel and LPG prices are increased, if tomorrow through
power reforms people have to pay more power, these are issues that
concern the politicians. The politicians are worried that good economics
doesn't make good politics. How do you respond to that that reformist
Prime Ministers don't get elected, reformist agenda is not an agenda.Arun Shourie: Well, then so much worse for the country
Rajdeep. for example, are the deficits of the state electricity board
sustainable and that has completely dried up for a fresh investment in
the private sector and therefore intensifying power politics for
tomorrow?
Rajdeep Sardesai: But politicians, whether they are from the Congress or the BJP, want free power that makes them electable. Arun Shourie: That question you should ask them. On the
question of the economics of the matter, I feel that postponing good
economics is a disaster for the country and a disaster for the
politicians who acquire the country by ignoring economics.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Is that a paradox for democracy that good economics doesn't make good politics? How do you get elected next time?Arun Shourie: Democracy is no substitute for soundness of
common sense. Just see the record, we shout and scream at a particular
time when a reform is made and forget it after that. I will give you an
example, can you often tell me that in 2011, by what percentage points
was the power rate in different states increased? You've forgotten, it
is up to 28 pc. Do you in July, in Kerala power rates were increased by
how much? By 30 pc. You can say this is going to ultimately dislodge all
the governments, but the fact of the matter is that in India I've found
that when you do something, people shout and scream and then like a sea
absorbing a great rock thrown into it, Indians absorb it and get ahead.
Today, I feel that a very good example is Narendra Modi in Gujarat. He
has increased power rates. He charges power from every farmer. But he
delivers power and nobody minds paying.
Rajdeep Sardesai: So you don't see these protests on
LPG reflecting a growing public anger, double digit inflation, the
housewife is affected. Mamata Banerjee says what about the kitchens of
the housewives?Arun Shourie: Well, they're all phrases. What about the
kitchens of the housewives when there'll be no power and no coal because
of the protests on coal, no atomic power because of the protests on
atomic power, no hydro power because the activists are saying that the
Himalayas are being destabilized, then where will the kitchens cook
food? These are all phrases. Why not contrast what Gujarat has achieved?
Why are we shying away from that. They are charging for power and they
are delivering power. Everybody pays for medical services, education
cess has been increased, but services are being delivered.
Rajdeep Sardesai: So you're saying that the Indian
voter today will be ready for a hike in prices of diesel or power
provided the services are essentially delivered to him/her? Arun Shourie: That is my presumption. But I'm no expert on
what the Indian voter will do. I don't know the Indian people and I
don't know whether many of these politicians know the people. They're
always as surprised by their victory as they are by their loss.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But doesn't it worry you? For
example, Manmohan Singh in 2001-02 was opposing FDI in retail when he
was leading the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, today he is a voter of
it. Yashwant Sinha and the BJP, supported the FDI in their vision
document when they were in the government, now they oppose it. Doesn't
that worry you about democracy in India that when you're in the
Opposition you oppose the same reforms that you supported when you were
in the government?Arun Shourie: Absolutely, and you're as if you're quoting
some of my books and articles. I've said that this adversarial politics
has been taken to an absurd level in India. Whatever you do, I will
shout against it and then when I do the same thing you will shout
against it and block it. That is no format.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But what is the solution Sir given
the gridlock in Parliament, given the fact that Parliament doesn't
debate these issues, given the fact that a Bharat bandh is seen as a way
to express people's anger, what's the way out of this adversarial
politics?Arun Shourie: Just do the work you can do without
legislation at the moment. There is enormous scope for that. For
instance, just expedite the execution of infrastructure projects. Don't
squander money. There are a large number of companies in India who are
stuck in real economic difficulties because the government has not
discharged their bills. Pay them because they are working on
infrastructure projects. How many committees have been announced in
budget. Mr Chidambaram announced that this committee has been set up,
the Prime Minister is its head to ensure expeditious implementation of
core infrastructure projects, what has happened? Just get these
clearances off the ground, just get infrastructure projects going. Even
today, in one week, you can identify, which project, what is the
obstacle and that is removed with 10 persons sitting at one table. That
is the way forward. That is what will show that India can move ahead.
Rajdeep Sardesai: The reason I'm saying this Sir is
that over the next 18 months, we're heading towards the General
Election, it could come even earlier. There's talk that the government
will come up with big ticket social sector schemes, be it free health
for all, be it food security, do you believe that that is sustainable
today given the fact that the fiscal deficit threatens to get out of
control, or do you believe it is possible to do both in India?Arun Shourie: I believe that that is the gravest danger in
the next 18 months because we're going into that cycle, we're going to
have elections in Gujarat, then Karnataka, then all the other states.
This is one of the gravest dangers that this government, which is weak
and has been paralysed thus far, will now go in for so called social
sector expenditure, which is just throwing money outside the window.
That will not improve delivery, that'll only mean higher deficit, higher
inflation and crowding out the capacity for the private sector to
borrow from the Indian saver. That'll be the repetition of the last five
years.
Rajdeep Sardesai: May I ask you in conclusion then, you
are trying to build the need for a bipartisan consensus at a time
economic strain. Unfortunately, as we're seeing in politics that even
after the Prime Minister's speech, exactly the opposite is happening.
There are more shrill, adversarial voices. I come back one last time,
the only way out you see, it seems, is that take executive decisions
that re in the interest of the country. almost bypass Parliament, that
you believe is the only way in Parliamentary democracy for good
economics to be implemented?Arun Shourie: And other things also. These things cannot
be implemented, as you correctly implied, without everybody getting
together. Can subsidies be reduced without everybody getting together?
Everybody will agree in private that this level of subsidy is
unsustainable. Similarly, look at reservations. As I have written in my
books, there is a small cancer becoming bigger and bigger. Now
reservation on the basis of religion, pay. I bet my name on it that
before the next elections, this government, desperate for votes, will
decrease something towards reservation in the private sector. Can you
reverse this process without everybody realizing that everyone owes a
duty to the country also.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Isn't that a message for our
politicians. Mr Shourie, you've been in politics, are you worried,
therefore, that politicians are populists, therefore economic populism
doesn't make good economics, but politicians are not willing to
understand the difference, because they have to get elected?Arun Shourie: Many other, I don't want to keep quoting the
example of Narendra Modi, but you'll regard him as a populist? He's
delivering services. Why can't we learn from that example?
Rajdeep Sardesai: Why can't the BJP learn it from him then. He's a BJP chief minister. Arun Shourie: That you may ask the BJP. I remember that
Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon is not much of a populist, but he delivered.
If I give you an example, Mr Bansilal delivered on the ground in
Haryana, whatever other things he did. I remember many chief ministers
in the south. look at Karnataka, how well it was administered.
Rajdeep Sardesai: My final word then, has the Prime Minister in you view delivered, or is it too little, too late?Arun Shourie: He has begun, I hope he will persevere and run very rapidly, otherwise, even this little thing will be just another 'aatishbaazi' (firecracker) which went up and then nobody heard of it.
Rajdeep Sardesai: So you believe that the Prime
Minister, if anything, the case is now for more reforms, not less
reforms, often through executive decisions of the Cabinet, this is a
moment where Manmohan Singh has to show that he's not just a one-off. He
has to sustain this momentum. Arun Shourie: Indeed.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Mr Arun Shourie, as always, a pleasure talking to you. Thank you very much for joining us. Source: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/pm-must-not-wait-for-legislation-for-reforms-shourie/294760-37-64.html

Monday, September 17, 2012

The Monsoon session of Parliament was a complete washout with the Opposition refusing to let both Houses function over the alleged coal scam. This week on Walk The Talk, senior BJP leader and former union minister Arun Shourie talks about how these disruptions are counter-productive for the country.
Source: http://youtu.be/UsFWBrl1X-4

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Strongly disapproving the BJP’s strategy to stall the monsoon session
of Parliament over the coal blocks allotment controversy, former
telecom minister Arun Shourie has said that such disruptions were
counter-productive as they greatly harmed the country. Instead, the main
opposition party could have used the session to analyse the allotments
and convince the country that it is a responsible group that can govern
the country better.
Frequent disruptions have brought Parliament on par with state
assemblies and this trend has over the last 20 years played out like the
“elongated funeral rites of the parliamentary system”, said Shourie,
who has distanced himself from the BJP. “Whenever you paralyse it,
whatever be the issue, you are inflicting great harm to the country,”
Shourie told Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief of The Indian Express, in an
interview for NDTV’s ‘Walk the Talk’ programme.
“The institution is getting reduced to what state assemblies are
like. In state assemblies, the sessions are now of 4-5 days each. So, if
you see the effective days of Parliament, it has been already reduced
to a level of state assemblies. Can a country like India be run like
that?” Shourie asked. “Whatever be the issue,” the opposition should
adopt methods that will strengthen institutions like Parliament, he
said.
Shourie said he did not find merit in the BJP’s argument that the
strategy to disrupt Parliament was a one-off case to bring the coal
block allotment controversy to the notice of voters. “One session
actually casts a shadow on the institution of Parliament forever,”
Shourie said, lamenting the trend of disrupting Parliament in the name
of one issue or the other. “Even from the narrow point of view, it is
counter productive, in my view...for 15-20 years now, we are attending
the elongated funeral rites of the parliamentary system.”
Parliament could also have made use of existing rules to suspend
unruly members who protest by rushing to the well of the house, said the
author and former newspaper editor. “Just enforce the rules and tire
them out. Let the country see them,” Shourie said, referring to the
protesting MPs. While disruptions helped the government by diverting
attention away from the issue in question, the BJP had very articulate
leaders who could have analysed and debated the controversy in
Parliament and put the government on the mat, he said.
The BJP should, in fact, use the opportunity to present itself as
a credible alternative to the UPA government instead of disrupting
Parliament, Shourie said. “You should not worry too much about the
government. It is not going to change. It is working full time to prove
its worthlessness. The opposition should concentrate on convincing the
country that it is a responsible group, that it can govern, that they
have better ideas, that they have a better record at implementing these
ideas,” Shourie said.
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arun-shourie-criticises-bjp-for-not-letting-parliament-work/1001867/0

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Arun Shourie interview
Arun Shourie speaks to Madhu Trehan on "being sacrificed" by Ramnath
Goenka, fatwas and kaafirs, the Manu Smriti and the need for a Hindu
soul with an Islamic body, the culture of appeasement, Modi and the
"coup against Vajpayee", BJP not being a particularly religious party
and more.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Arun Shourie’s oeuvre of writing made for an interesting panel discussion. By TEAM VIVA
He is credited with uncovering the Indian version of
Watergate. When he speaks or writes, people notice. One might disagree
or agree with the contents but one appreciates the flair. Arun Shourie’s
name elicits a raised eyebrow and grudging expression of respect, even
from his sworn opponents. It was the launch of a new edition of his
books. Shourie is nothing if not thorough. All the books have a two inch
thick spine. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, who moderated the panel discussion
remarked, “There is atleast one place where Arun confirms to being a
Gandhian. His complete works will have 90 volumes.”
Soli J Sorabjee, Arif Mohammed Khan and Pratap Bhanu Mehta were a
part of the discussion at India Habitat Center. The four books,
(released by Harper Collins) deal with topics, that are both
controversial and sensitive. Falling Over Backwards is an essay
against reservations and judicial populism. It was published during
2006, immediately after the 27 per cent increase in reservations were
announced. The World Of Fatwasor the Shariah inaction, is concerned with the social, religious and political context of fatwas through ages.
It was first published in 1995. Worshipping False Gods, demystified the legend of BR Ambedkar.
Does He know a mother’s heart, deals with his own life and how at
times, even god cannot be held responsible for what happens on Earth.
The relationship of Aditya, his son (who has cerebral palsy), with the
family is poignant. The book came out last year.
On Falling Over Backwards, Soli S Sorabjee commented, “When
we talk of reservation, we need to address that yes, certain groups have
been discriminated against.
“And three things need to be kept in mind — the extent of the
reservations, the application and duration. The aim was to enhance
people’s lives. But the underlying philosophy hasn’t been employed....
it’s the parliamentarians who make it tough,” said Sorabjee.
Arif Mohammed described The World of Fatwas... as “not an attack on the Muslims. It’s an attack on the deviation that took place in Islamic history.
He added, ““In the Quran its said, that the judgment belongs to God
alone. Not even the Prophet has right to issue judgment. The word
‘fatwa’ is used just ten times in the Quran. And not the way the current
fatwa making industry uses it.”
Pratap Bhanu Mehta felt that Falling over Backwards was the
most disturbing of the books, because of its powerful reasoning. “Arun
writes about a judge, ‘if any one else had passed such gas, it would
have been nauseous’. It questions the democracy we live in. A democratic
government is run by public reason, not votes. It should be spirited,
have free speech, and practice of public reason. We have free speech,
but what about frank speech? There is no public reason. Leave alone the
corrupt, second guessing nature of current democracy.”
He quoted Hazari Prasad Dwivedi, ‘Jab dil bhara ho aur dimaag
khaali, toh kisko charcha main ruchi hogi,’ Arun’s books show that hum
sabke dimaag khali hain, par dil kyun bhara hai, that is the
question”. (If the heart is full, and the mind empty, who will be
interested in debate? Shourie proves our minds are empty, but why the
heart is full, is the key question.)
Diatribes were expected. “I haven’t spared anyone, for I haven’t
spared myself Soli,” came Shourie’s rejoinder. “We seldom talk about
these issues in public. In private we may have a stand, but we care more
about being political correct. The Khaps and fatwas gain power for no
has spoken against them. There is a silence that is deafening.”
He concluded, “I took these subjects, as I wanted to grill facts, and
create an avalanche. I read 18000 pages on fatwas. Its necessary to
deal with the facts. While Indian politics has become freer, the
politician has become more silent. The current discourse is dominated
by people who believe in nothing.
“The media has ignored important issues of our time. Even though its
writing against the current intellectual fashion, some one must do it.”
sOURCE: http://www.dailypioneer.com/vivacity/83691-fatwas-and-false-gods.html

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The power of pen and words whether used for appreciation
or criticism should be used wisely, according to renowned journalist
and author Arun
Shourie.

"There is nothing wrong in criticising any book or anybody's viewpoint,
but we should adopt a route of healthy criticism which reflects the
other side of the argument," Shourie said at the launch of new editions
of his bestsellers.

After the success of Shourie's book 'Does He Know a Mother's Heart' last year, Harper Collins launched the new editions of three of his bestsellers including
World of Fatwas, Falling over Backwards and Worshipping false Gods -
Ambedkar and the Facts Which Have Been Erased.

"If somebody has an argument to counter the viewpoint presented in any
book, he or she should write the book reflecting the other side rather
than banning books or burning books,"
Shourie, whose books have been celebrated, criticised and debated, said.

He added that the present era requires lengthy books that present more
facts than short books which may interest the readers but provide
half-knowledge. Advising the young authors, he said one should take up a
subject, do rigorous research and present an avalanche of facts to the
readers.

"I had read 18,000 fatwas while I was writing World of Fatwas and had written about 200 judgments of the Supreme Court in
Falling over Backwards," he said.

He added that, "If I would have quoted only one verse it would have
been out of context. Once I have done thorough research and garnered the
facts then I feel satisfied that my job is done."

Expressing his view on Shourie's' book about fatwas, former Union Minister Arif Mohammed Khan said,
"World of Fatwas has been criticised, attacked and perceived as
an attack on Muslim community, whereas according to me it is an attack
on the deviation which took place in Islamic history."

In his book 'World of Fatwas', Shourie has shown Shariah in
action, with a mountain of fatwas as his text. He has unravelled the
history of
fatwas, and the implications that a faithful, rigid adherence to these
Islamic judgments holds for the 'believer'. And hence for the
non-believers.

His book 'Worshipping False Gods- Ambedkar and the Facts that Have Been
Erased' whose decade-old cartoon of Ambedkar rocked the Parliament
for days recently casts a critical look at the legend of Ambedkar who
has has come to be idolised as no other political leader over the last
couple of decades.

In Falling Over Backwards, Arun Shourie has pointed to the
truth about reservations and has highlighted the fact that they are a
sleight of hand on the part of politicians. He has also taken apart
pro-reservation judgments of the Supreme Court.

Quoting Worshipping False Gods as most disturbing one among the
three books, Pratap Bhanu
Mehta, President, Centre for Policy Research, said, "It is the most
disturbing one because other books don't entirely surprise the readers
as some facts about it (the subject) are already in public domain."

Monday, July 30, 2012

DEBATE: The former Chief Justice of India M. N. Venkatachaliah, the
former Lokayukta N. Santosh Hegde, and the former Union Minister Arun
Shourie at the book launch in Bangalore on Sunday. Photo: K. Murali
Kumar

New editions of Arun Shourie’s four books launched

M.N. Venkatachaliah, former Chief Justice of India, on Sunday expressed
concern that the country had reached a stage of negative social critical
mass that unleashes a chain of destructive reactions due to various
lacunae.

“This situation is a cause of concern as we are in a stage of
destructive reactions and not reasoning,” he said, while participating
at the launch of new editions of four books of
journalist-turned-politician Arun Shourie at a programme jointly
organised by HarperCollins Publishers Indian and Jagriti here.

“We must know that children are taught in schools and educated at home.
This is the problem as the parents are now not free to focus on their
children at homes. The whole thing needs a relook from the educational
perspective,” he said, while referring to the earlier practice of
children learning about values at home.

Speaking on the occasion, Mr. Shourie called upon parents to teach their
wards about the importance of values by setting themselves as examples.

Mr. Shourie, who shared his experiences as a writer, stressed the need
for people to speak their mind irrespective of whether others approve of
it or not.

Narrating how those who did not agree with his views mentioned in his
books related to B.R. Ambedkar and fatwas physically assaulted him,
poured tar on him, and abused him, Mr. Shourie said finally it was B.R.
Ambedkar’s grandson Prakash Ambedkar who came to his rescue by telling
people that the answer to [Shourie’s] book was a [another] book and not
violence.

Mr. Shourie said that public discourse was dominated by people,
especially politicians, who believed in nothing. “People do not believe
Congress’ talks of secularism and the BJP’s Hindutva as they think that
neither of these parties believe in either,” he pointed out.

Speaking on the occasion, the former Karnataka Lokayukta N. Santosh
Hegde advised the youth to try and understand the true meaning of world
contentment. “It is not real contentment when you acquire some
illegitimate wealth. This is only temporary as the next day itself you
would want to acquire more. The true contentment comes only when you get
something legitimately through hard work.”

The new editions of books released at the programme were Does he know a mother’s heart: how suffering refutes religions; Worshipping false gods – Ambedkar and the facts that have been erased; The work of fatwas – or the Sharia in action; and Falling over backwards – An essay of reservations and judicial populism.

Monday, April 16, 2012

New Delhi : 13 May 2004: The Congress Government with Y S Reddy as Chief Minister is sworn-in as the new Government of Andhra Pradesh.

2 June 2004: The Chief Secretary holds a meeting. Secretaries of various departments attend. The Chief Secretary announces that the Government has decided to provide reservations for Muslims.

4 June 2004: So as to include them in the list of Other Backward Classes and thereby give them reservations in educational institutions and public employment under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), the Andhra Government issues an order directing a department of its own, the Commissionerate of Minority Welfare to submit a report recording the social, economic and educational backwardness of Muslims.

5 July 2004: The Commissionerate duly submits the report that the Government has asked for. It recommends that Muslims be given 5 per cent reservations in both educational institutions and public employment.

7 July 2004: The Government issues an order—5 per cent reservations are granted to the Muslim community.
The Government’s order is challenged in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The challenge is heard by a Bench of five judges. The Court strikes down the Government Order as wholly unconstitutional. The Court comes to this conclusion on several grounds.

Before a group can be accorded reservations in educational institutions under Article 15, it has to be established that the group is ‘socially and educationally backward.’ And before the group can be granted reservations in public employment under Article 16(4), the authorities have to establish both — that the group is ‘backward’ and that it is inadequately represented in governmental employment. The Government has decreed reservations for the entire Muslim community, but the Muslims are not a homogenous group: there are caste-like stratifications among them, the High Court noted, observing:

Non-Hindu religions like Islam, Christianity, and Sikh, do not recognize caste as such, but the existence of caste like social stratification among the Muslims is well recognized that in spite of egalitarian philosophy of Islam, which opposes all kinds of discriminations, almost all types of caste groups have emerged in the Muslims. The Muslims have developed different caste-groups at different places, but they call themselves as Jamat or Biradari and do not use the term Jat or caste e.g. Nadaf or Mansoori Jamat or Biradari, but in actual practice, they possess practically all the traits of caste structure such as endogamy, stratification, occupational monopoly, dress-code and their own different Mosques.’

Therefore, there can be a case for identifying specific groups from among the Muslims as being backward and thereby according reservations for them, the High Court said. But what has the Government and its Commissionerate done? This is how the High Court sets out what it finds:

The process of identification of Muslims as a group as socially backward by the Commissionerate of Minorities Welfare is totally vitiated since it did not determine any specific criteria for the purposes of identifying the Backward Classes and applied the same in order to find out as to whether the Muslims qualify to categorise them as socially backward and as well as backward for the purposes of Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The Commissionerate acted in undue haste. The Commissionerate failed to undertake any serious investigation and enquiry as is required before identifying the Muslim Community as a socially Backward Class. In the absence of laying down the criteria for ascertaining the backwardness, the entire report is to be treated as an exercise in futility. The approach adopted by the authority is improper and invalid. In the absence of any such finding as to the social backwardness, the Muslims cannot be classified as Backward Classes either for the purposes of Article 15(4) or Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

When, in the face of differentia within a religious community, the required investigation is not undertaken, and the entire community is proclaimed to be backward and reservations are decreed for that religious community, two fatal consequences follow:

* Unequals — the socially, educationally and economically advanced sections among Muslims, and those among them who are backward — get treated as equals. And equals—say, the advanced sections among non-Muslims and those among Muslims — get treated unequally: the advanced among non-Muslims do not get reservations and those among Muslims do. This strikes at the very root of the fundamental principle enshrined in Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1), the principle of equality which, the Supreme Court has held times without number, is an essential ingredient of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

* As no effort has been made to take account of differentiations within the Muslim community and as reservations have been made available to the entire community as such, the decision — of giving reservations to an entire religious community when in fact there is inequality between groups of adherents — is clearly based on religion per se, and this is expressly prohibited by the Constitution under Articles 15(1) and 16(2).

To not exclude the better off in a religious group, the ‘creamy layer’ as the Supreme Court had characterized them in Indra Sawhney, has the same effect that not doing so has in the case of a caste, and, in the light of judgments of the Supreme Court, is ‘totally illegal’, the High Court observes. ‘Such an illegality offending the root of the Constitution cannot be allowed to be perpetuated even by constitutional amendment.’

Next, under the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes Act, which has been on the statute book since 1993, the Government can add a group to or take away a group from the list of Backward Classes only after the case for doing so has been examined by the state’s Backward Classes Commission constituted under that Act. It turned out that the state had not sought the advice of the Commission at all in regard to the backwardness or otherwise of Muslims. Nor had the Commission examined the matter at all. Two earlier Commissions—the Anantaraman Commission and the Murlidhara Rao Commission—had examined the issue, and had come to the conclusion that as a class, Muslims are not socially and educationally backward, and that, except for a few sects, the other sects of Muslims enjoy equal status with followers of other religions. Those few sects that did suffer from social and educational backwardness—Dudekula, Mehtar, etc.—the Commissions had said should be included in the list of Backward Classes, and given reservations. This had been done.

The decision of the Government is ‘entirely based’ on the report of its own department, the Commissionerate, the High Court noted. And what kind of a report had this Commissionerate produced? This what the High Court found on examination:

* ‘The report on hand, to say the least, is somewhat peculiar . . . The Commissionerate report does not contain the details of any investigation or enquiry as regards the social backwardness of Muslim Community,’ the High Court noted. ‘There is no finding recorded by the Commissionerate as to the social backwardness of the community.’

* ‘The report, in our considered opinion,’ the High Court held, ‘is vitiated for the reason of not taking relevant factors into consideration. It is also vitiated for the reason of non-application of mind. This Court cannot help but observe that the Commissionerate acted in undue haste in submitting the report. The Commissionerate failed to realise the complex nature of investigation and enquiry that was required to be made. No scientific or reasoned investigation or enquiry has been made. In the absence of laying down the criteria for ascertaining the backwardness, the entire report is to be treated as an exercise in futility. The approach adopted by the authority is improper and invalid.’

The Government, as we just noted, was also duty-bound under Article 16(4) to determine that the Muslims as a community are inadequately represented in governmental services. This fact also cannot be ascertained mechanically for the expression that has been used in Article 16 is not ‘proportional representation’ but ‘inadequate representation’. Hence, one cannot just look up the proportion that a group forms of the total population and compare that with the proportion of posts that its members have in governmental services. On this aspect also, the High Court concluded, the Government had been totally remiss in what it was required to do by the Constitution and the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court:

* ‘In the instant case, there is no material that was available with the Government to form its opinion, which may be a purely subjective process to arrive at any conclusion that the Muslim Community is not adequately represented in the services of the State. The data collected from Kurnool District [just one of 23 districts in the state] and incorporated in the report in no manner reveals inadequate representation of Muslim Community in the services of the state. There were no material and circumstances on which the Government could have formed the opinion as to the adequacy of representation of Muslim Community in the services of the state. In fact, the impugned G.O. [Government Order] does not reflect any formation of opinion as to the adequacy of representation. The G.O., is therefore, vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind.’

Finally, the High Court noted that reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) in Andhra already totaled 46 per cent. With another 5 per cent now being reserved for Muslims, the ceiling of 50 per cent was being breached. The state has not been able to explain the compelling reasons on account of which this ceiling should be allowed to be breached, the High Court concluded.

The response

As resounding a slap on the face of the Government as one could imagine. And how did the Government respond? It was headed by a committed secularist, remember, by a Chief Minister who was even then known as a go-getter—a reputation that would get reinforced in more ways than one in the ensuing years.

The High Court had given its judgment in Muralidhar Rao on 21 September 2004. On 18 November 2004, the Government wrote to the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Commission to examine the question of the backwardness of the Muslim community for assessing their eligibility for being given reservations in educational institutions and public employment. The Commission gave its report—we shall soon learn what kind of a report this was—on 14 June 2005. Within the week, on 20 June 2005, the Congress Government issued an Ordinance—again reserving 5 per cent seats in educational institutions and governmental jobs for Muslims.

The Ordinance was challenged in the Andhra High Court. When the judges gathered in Court to deliver their judgment, they were told that the Ordinance on which they had been hearing arguments and on which they were about to pronounce judgment had lapsed. It had been replaced by an Act. The Court saw that there was no material change in the provisions, and merely noted in its judgment that wherever the word ‘Ordinance’ occurs, it shall be taken to refer to the Act. Delivered by a five judge Bench, the second judgment of the High Court—in B. Archana Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh—was an even tighter slap than the first one. The Ordinance/Act was struck down as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 15(4) and 16(4), the two Articles under which it had ostensibly made the reservations.

An even tighter slap

The first feature that made the Ordinance and the Act wholly unconstitutional was precisely the one that had made them so attractive to a Government so eager to pander to a vote-bank—the boon that it was conferring was based wholly and solely on religion! From the title of the Act—A.P. Reservation of Seats in the Educational Institutions and of Appointments or posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Act, 2005—to its Preamble, down to individual provisions, every bit of the text was designed to leave no doubt that it was intended for giving reservations to the Muslims as a religious community solely because it was the Muslim community. The classification of those who would get the reservations that were being provided and those who would not was based only on religion—something that is explicitly prohibited by Articles 14, 15(1), 15(2), as well as 16(1) and 16(2).

In any event, this single feature—of basing the discrimination, in this case between Muslims and non-Muslims, only on the ground of religion—was the one on which the High Court judges came down first.

The Ordinance is ‘religion specific’, the judges noted. It ‘imposes illegitimate, discriminatory and grossly burdensome impact on citizens, on those belonging to the existing notified Backward Classes and on those who are not members of Backward Classes, as well,’ they noted. ‘The inference is therefore compelling that the entirety of the state action manifested in the provisions of the Ordinance, is a crude camouflage to shield what is clearly a naked and exclusively religion based programme of reservation in educational institutions and public employment,’ they observed. The classification—of those who will get reservations and those who would not—is based exclusively on religion, they held.

In this round, the Government had indeed referred the question to the Backward Classes Commission for examination. But the Commission had just done a pro forma job. The Commission’s report ought to have been of the standard of a commanding performance, the Court observed quoting the petitioners with approval, rather than a performance on command. This was made manifest by several facts.

The Commission had not published in advance the criteria on which it would be assessing backwardness—this alone would have given those who had objections or suggestions a chance to assist the Commission with their views. ‘The prior non-publication of criteria and data collected by the B.C. Commission renders the report of the B.C. Commission illegal and contrary to provisions of B.C. Commission Act and principles of fairness.’
In fact, whereas ‘an expert body like the Backward Classes Commission has to necessarily evolve absolutely relevant criteria for the purpose of caste test, occupation test and means test,’ in the case at hand, ‘the B.C. Commission did not evolve any criteria for identifying social backwardness and did not apply the three tests in a scientific and objective manner.’

And such criteria as it used, and such data-gathering as it did were inappropriate and worse. So that it may determine whether a group is eligible for reservations, the Commission had to identify those groups among Muslims who were socially, educationally and economically backward—only such groups can be given benefit of reservations. As had been the case with the Commissionerate in the first round, in this round the Backward Classes Commission too had ‘totally ignored the existence of castes and communities and proceeded as if the entire Muslim community is a homogenous group without any visible divisions among the community. The entire approach therefore suffers from a fundamental flaw.’ Treating Muslims of Andhra as a homogenous group thereby papering over the internal differentia among them, ‘constitutes a fatal flaw in the conceptual foundation, adopted methodology and social survey of the Commission’s exercise and introduces an irremediable infirmity to its conclusions and recommendations.’

And the Court gave a telling analogy to pronounce what the Commission had done as ‘grotesque and unconstitutional’. It noted,

‘Classes of Muslims already recognized and identified as backward classes constitute a dissimilar and distinct class from those Muslims who have not been so identified. Conceptually treating such dissimilar classes as one violates the established principle of classification, a doctrine underwriting the equality injunctions mandated by Articles 14-16 of Constitution. The equivalence of the Commission's endeavour and exercise, in the Hindu context, would be to take the entire Hindu collectivity including the several castes, groups and classes including the notified Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes, and including the indisputable forward castes among the Hindus, like say the Brahmins, proceeding to survey, collect data, apply the criteria to such data and thereafter characterize the entire Hindu population including Brahmins as a backward class. Such an exercise would compellingly require to be characterized as grotesque and unconstitutional. This is what the exercise of the Commission is, but for the difference that the Commission's exercise involved the entirety of the Muslim collective.’

The consequence is fatal, the High Court noted: ‘In treating the identified Backward Classes of Muslims in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other Muslims as an integral homogeneous social class, as the basis for its entire exercise, the Commission was led into a fatal error from which there is no redemption. As a consequence its exercise is rendered an exercise in futility. For this error its report including the Recommendations therein must perish as must the Ordinance based exclusively on the Recommendations of the Commission.’

Several of the so-called criteria that the Commission had deployed—occupation, extent of poverty, access to medical services, low life expectancy, etc.—the High Court held, were neither germane to nor peculiar to the Muslims. Nor had the Commission made any effort to establish any causal relationship between these traits and belief in Islam or of belonging to the Muslim community. As such, the criteria that the Commission had used were ‘defective, unscientific, unreasonable and absurd.’

In regard to several other indices and data that the Commission had brandished, examination showed that its conclusions in instance after instance were ‘based on no relevant evidence or material,’ that for them ‘there is neither data nor details of the survey, incorporated on record,’ that ‘the Commission had no basis, in concept or fact to support the conclusion that Muslims are socially backward,’ that ‘the Commission’s conclusions based on a composition of erroneous assumptions, are therefore unsustainable...’

The Commission had not just pronounced all Muslims of Andhra to be backward, it had also declared that none of the existing backward classes have attained levels of advancement that warrant any revision of the existing reservations—this it had done manifestly so as to make out the case for exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling. ‘This conclusion,’ the Court said of this business of no backward group having advanced, is ‘extravagant and unfounded,’ it is based on no reference, no evidence, is perverse, invalid and is accordingly declared.

In fact, the situation had been worse. Far from identifying and differentiating those groups among Muslims in Andhra who really were backward, in the reliance it placed on some data, the Commission had not even differentiated Muslims in Andhra from Muslims in the rest of the country! For instance, to show that a proportion of Muslims in Andhra were unemployed, the Commission had deployed what turned out to be aggregate National Sample Survey data for the country as a whole!

And in other instances, the Commission had deliberately shut its eyes to data that could be seen from a mile to be intrinsic to the question it was examining. To show that Muslims as a whole were educationally backward, it had used data regarding enrollment in only the general educational institutions—it had totally shut out data about students enrolled in minority institutions, when these are legion in the state!

‘From the text and texture of the report of the Commission,’ the High Court was compelled to conclude, ‘it is apparent that the Commission considered that it had to record a conclusion regardless of whether time and organizational constraints permit a degree of exercise relevant to the goal obligated by the Constitution and the provisions of the 1993 Act.’

Such was the ‘performance on command’ that the backward Classes Commission of the state had turned in—and the state had justified its decision solely by the report of this Commission. But, the Court noted, the Government had gone one better!

While the Commission recommended 5% of reservation to all Muslims including those distinct classes/ groups of Muslims already included as Backward Classes (Laddaf, Dudekula etc), the Ordinance provided 5% reservation only in favour of Muslims excluding those already included in the list of Backward Classes. The existing Groups of Backward Classes A, B, C and D remain undisturbed.

As a result, Muslims would get reservations for more than the 5 per cent that the Ordinance/Act had provided!!
For these, and other reasons of the kind we encountered in the case of the first round, the 5-judge Bench of the High Court struck down the Ordinance/Act as wholly violative of the Constitution and wholly contrary to what the Supreme Court had laid down in its decisions.

The High Court handed down this stinging rebuke on 7 November 2005. The Government requested that it be given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave was granted.

That leave petition remains pending to this day. But how could that mere fact come in the way of that go-getter’s Government?

The third slap

17 April 2007: The Andhra Government asked the Backward Classes Commission to do the exercise again, and, this time, identify the socially and educationally backward groups among Muslims. Incidentally, in making that request the Government quoted the wrong section of the relevant Act!

18 May 2007: Even as the Commission was ostensibly carrying out the exercise, the Government appointed a retired IAS officer, P.S. Krishnan as Advisor and asked him to identify the backwards among Muslims.

11 June 2007: A month had not passed, and Krishnan submitted his report to the Government.

11 June 2007: The same day, the Government sent Krishnan’s report to the Backward Classes Commission.
23 to 26 June 2007: The Commission declared that it would conduct its own state-wide survey during these—all of three—days. Even on its own telling, this state-wide survey was to be done in—the easily accessible areas, chiefly towns—of just six of the state’s 23 districts.

29 June 2007: The Commission completed ‘the collection of the data, compilation of the survey material and discussion on the collected material.’

2 July 2007: That is, within two days of completing the collection, compilation and discussion of the data, the Commission handed its 204-page report to the Government!

6 July 2007: The Government issued an Ordinance—once again decreeing 5 per cent reservations for Muslims in educational institutions and in government services.

There was one manifest improvement! While the title of the 2005 Act had stated that the reservations were being made for the ‘Muslim Community,’ the 2007 Act maintained these were for ‘Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims’!

The Act was challenged in the High Court. The case was heard by a seven judge Bench. By a majority judgment, the Court struck down the Act as ‘unsustainable’. Apart from the other reasons which the Court set out in detail, and which traversed the grounds that we have already encountered, there were others. Among these was the basic one: the Act had proceeded to classify beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in an unconstitutional way—that is, on the basis of religion only. To take just two instances, examination showed that the identification of backward classes among Muslims was both irrational and unsustainable, and thereby ‘exclusively religion specific’; and, second, in a give-away, the Act had prescribed benefits for ‘other Muslim groups’.

Apart from the fact that the Act was unconstitutional for this basic reason, the High Court drew attention to another consequence of this religion-specific identification of beneficiaries. The point is best considered by reading what the Court itself said:

If a person, who is not a Muslim and who belongs to a forward caste embraces Islam, then the question would arise as to in which group he would fall. If he does not belong to any of the groups specifically narrated in the Schedule appended to the impugned Act, he would be included in ‘other Muslim groups’ i.e. he would be in Item No. 15; but as he would not be in groups which have already been referred to in Item No. 15 (i.e. the excluded communities), he would be a member of ‘other Muslim groups’ and would be eligible for the reservation provided he is not a member of a creamy layer. In such an event, in our opinion, anyone can avail of the benefit of reservation under the impugned Act and that would be against the spirit of secularism and in equal measure subversive of the purposes for which the 2007 Act has been enacted as well. This is a significant aspect which has not been considered at all while enacting the impugned Act and this would have disastrous consequences. Not only unscrupulous persons embracing Islam would get the benefit of reservations, but that would result in depletion of opportunities of enjoying reservations by those Muslim groups who are otherwise entitled to the benefit of reservation in pursuance of the impugned enactment.

The other reason on account of which the judgment declared the Act to be unsustainable was that it was based exclusively on the report of the Backward Classes Commission, and this report, it turned out, was even more of a farce than the previous so-called reports on which the Government had ostensibly based its largesse.
To begin with, even the Advocate General admitted that ‘in certain cases there was perhaps no justification for including certain Muslim groups in the list of Backward Classes, except for the reason that their Hindu counterparts were already included as SEBCs, and for this reason, the Commission, without any survey to ascertain their way of living, level of education and economic condition, had recommended certain groups to be included in the list of Backward Classes.’

And what of the cases in which the Commission had actually conducted a survey?

The Court found, to begin with, that in the overwhelming proportion of cases, the Commission had in fact not conducted any survey at all. It had just reproduced passages and narrative from the study by the Anthropological Survey of India and that report of P.S. Krishnan! And even in doing so, it had both mis-stated facts, and worse.
In regard to a group—‘Atchukatlavandlu (Muslims)’—the Commission stated that it had conducted a survey in Kadapa and Adilabad districts of the state. But the Anthropological Survey study on which it was relying contained no discussion about this group of Muslims! What the latter had described was the Hindu counterparts of this group!

In regard to another group—‘Faqir/Fhakir Budbudki’—the Commission had stated that they reside in certain areas, which it had listed, of the Rayalseema Region. But the staff of the Commission had conducted their survey of this group in the Telangana Region! And that survey, did not establish backwardness to boot.

As regards another group—‘Siddi’—the only justification that the Commission could come up with for their being included in the list of backwards was that a group with the same name in Gujarat was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe, and one in Karnataka of that same name had been included in that state’s list of backwards!

In regard to another group—‘Garadi’—the Commission had indeed conducted a survey. It had surveyed all of seven households comprising 40 persons in one district, Medak! And, surprise of surprises, ‘Of those who had been surveyed, 100 per cent of them had stated that they were not given any discriminatory treatment by the society and they were alsonot in their traditional occupation. Moreover, they had all submitted that they were treated as normal social beings by the other members of the society.’ ‘In spite of the above facts gathered by the Commission,’ the High Court observed, ‘it had recommended that “Garadi” community be treated as socially and educationally backward.’ ‘It is also pertinent to note,’ the High Court continued, ‘that the total population of the Garadi community was not known...’

In regard to the ‘Gosangi’ community which too the Commission had anointed as backward, ‘data from only one family had been gathered by the Commission in Nizamabad district...’

Similarly, the Commission had recommended the inclusion of ‘Chakketakare community’ among backwards on the strength of having surveyed six households comprising 29 persons in one district.

As for the ‘Guddi Eluguvallu’ whom also the Commission declared should be recognized as backward, ‘no survey whatsoever had been conducted and no data had been collected by the Commission.’

‘Likewise,’ the High Court noted in conclusion, ‘with regard to other communities also, we find that the Commission had not conducted the survey objectively to justify its recommendations.’ The Commission just could not have conducted a survey in the extremely short time between its being asked to examine the matter, and the date on which it submitted its report, the High Court noted. As already pointed out, the records of the Commission themselves showed that some of the so-called data had been gathered by it on 28 and 29 June 2007. And within two days the Commission had not just analyzed the data, and had discussions on it. The Commission had completed and submitted a written report covering 204 pages!

After a detailed analysis of the so-called survey that the Commission had claimed to have conducted, the judges concluded that the Commission had failed to evolve and spell out proper and relevant criteria for identifying those who were socially and educationally backward, and for those who were inadequately represented in public employment; that it had failed to obtain even the figures of total population of the groups it was ostensibly identifying; that it had failed to utilize any scientific and statistically rational method of sampling the groups—the size of the sample, the locations where it would be conducted, etc.; that it had failed to apply uniformly such criteria or even standards as it had alighted upon; and that, instead, it had relied on the study of the Anthropological Survey of India which ‘had no relevance or nexus with the affirmation action/reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4); that ‘no material’ had been placed before the Court to prove that the classifications on which the Act was based had any nexus with the policy and objectives that had to be achieved; that, in the absence of such material, the state Government ‘has utterly failed to discharge its onus of proof to establish that the reservations are for socially and educationally Backward Classes of citizens and that the enactment is based on sufficient material to support the classification . . .’ And hence that the investigation carried out by the Commission ‘is not sufficient, and the report submitted by it is not based on real facts, data or analysis and is without any proper survey...’, and, therefore, that the report should be held to be mechanical, and perfunctory in nature and to have been prepared without application of mind . . .

A portent

Incidentally, before we move on we have to note one feature of the judgments in this case as it presages what is to come. In a case such as this, they were bound to examine the basis on which the legislature and the Government had acted, the judges pointed out. They had to subject the provisions of the law and the basis on which benefits under it had been assigned to ‘rigorous’ or ‘strict’ scrutiny, they pointed out, citing a number of Supreme Court judgments and even weightier reasons. One judge demurred. Such scrutiny is not warranted, he maintained. When the legislature passes an Act, we must proceed on the presumption of constitutional validity of the enactment. The others pointed out that ‘All the judgments touching upon reservations consistently applied exacting scrutiny. In Indra Sawhney’s case... the Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the Mandal Report minutely, which, in our view, exemplifies application of rigorous and exacting standard of scrutiny.’ They agreed that, yes, in the normal course, there should be a presumption of constitutionality, ‘However, such a presumption of constitutionality of a statute is not available if it can be shown that facially [sic.] the law or the surrounding circumstances on which the classification is based did not warrant such a classification and the statute made an invidious discrimination among citizens similarly situated . . .’ And when the constitutionality is challenged and a prima facie case is made out regarding the defectiveness of the statute, the burden of establishing constitutionality shifts to the state . . .

Both the fact that the classification in the Act was based on religion only, as well as the cavernous lacunae in the survey on which the list of backwards had been drawn up established the infirmity of the Act prima facie. But that judge’s response was astonishing.

As for the identification of groups being religion-specific—something that is expressly forbidden by the Constitution—the judge held, that is no flaw, in fact it is justice being done at last! Here is how he put his conclusion:
When the state of A.P., holds the view that coverage under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution in respect of certain social groups among Muslims have [sic.] been missed until the impugned Act even while the same coverage in respect of other religious communities have [sic.] been in existence since long time, the Court cannot accept any challenge to the Act on the ground that it is religion-specific. On the contrary, the impugned Act is an act of delayed rectification of injustice done to them all along and extending justice to the now included social groups who have been identified not on the basis of their religion but on the parameters of social and educational backwardness...

And as for the gross infirmities in the ‘survey’, as for the Commission having relied—to the extent of having reproduced verbatim—reports that had no nexus with the question it had to examine and the identification it had to carry out, the judge was equally large-hearted! He declared,

Irrespective of any inadequacies or deficiencies in the APCBC [Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes] report and other materials

In the light of what we have seen were the facts regarding the report of the Commission and its ‘survey’, how tender are the words the judge had chosen, ‘inadequacies or deficiencies’!

once a legislation is enacted the judiciary has to take into account the principle of presumption of constitutional validity of any legislation under the Indian Constitution and set it aside only if there is anything in the legislation which strikes the conscience and strikes the eye as totally unreasonable. This is not the position in the present case.

If only such large-hearted judges were an exception.

The second, and even more ominous portent came from the way the matter moved in the Supreme Court itself.
The Andhra Pradesh Government had accepted the judgment of the High Court in the first round. In the second round, when the High Court struck the Ordinance and Act down as unconstitutional, it sought leave to appeal. As we noted above, the appeal was granted.

The Government went to the Supreme Court and asked that the judgment be reviewed and in the interim its operation be stayed. A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice, directed that, in view of the substantial questions of public importance that are involved, the matter be placed before a Constitution Bench. It turned down the Andhra Government's request to stay the operation of the judgment of the High Court. From the order of the Supreme Court, you will see the sort of specious arguments that are advanced.

The Government said, in effect, identification of social and educational backwardness is a precondition only when it comes to giving reservations in educational institutions under Article 15(4). Article 16(4) allows us to make reservations in public employment for classes that are not adequately represented. So, we should be allowed to proceed at least with the latter, and the High Court judgment should be stayed.

Of course, Article 16(4) lays down two conditions: not just that the classes for whom reservations are being made in government services are inadequately represented but also that they are `backward'. Hence, determination that the classes for whom reservations are being made are backward is as essential in the context of Article 16(4) as it is in regard to reservations being made under Article 15(4). The Supreme Court focused on another telling point. The Ordinance which was in question itself stated the objective for which the reservations were being made. In doing so it referred to “social, educational and economic backwardness” of the members of the Muslim community residing in Andhra. Hence, identification of the groups that are actually backward was of the very essence of the exercise in this instance also.

“Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the Constitutional provisions and the report [of the Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes] as also the impugned judgment, we are not inclined to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and make operational a law which has been invalidated by the High Court, as an interim measure.”

That was the second round -- the appeal of the Andhra Government has remained where it was, pending before the Supreme Court for the last five years.

It is the third round in which the portentous thing happened. As we have seen, the High Court had again struck down the 2007 Act as unsustainable and unconstitutional. The Andhra Government went to the Supreme Court in appeal-it requested that the High Court judgment be reviewed, and that pending the review, it be stayed. The Bench headed by the then Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, did the opposite of what the Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of the same Supreme Court had done earlier. It referred the case to a Constitution Bench all right, but, even as it did so-that is, even as it concluded that the constitutionality of the Act had to be determined and “several constitutional issues are involved” -- it stayed the judgment of the High Court: thereby, to use the words of the earlier Bench, making operational a law which the High Court had found to be wholly unconstitutional. “As an interim measure,” it said, the 4 per cent reservations that have been given to Muslims listed in the Schedule of the Act shall continue-save that they shall not be extended to “Other Muslim groups.” “This is a temporary measure,” it said, “till the matter is decided.'

The order of the Supreme Court concluded with the words, “These matters are referred to the Constitution Bench to be listed in the 2nd week of August 2010 along with C.A. 7513/2005 for appropriate directions.”

We are in January 2012 as I write this -- hence, a two-year-long foot-in-the-door! And the argument will be that, reservations having been available to Muslims now for over two years and their having got accustomed to availing of them, reversing course now will inflict great injustice and lead to massive resentment and backlash...

For the present, it will be enough to bear two points in mind.

First, The prohibition against basing largesse and classification on religion alone is so stern and so patent, it has been reiterated by the courts so very often that one is left wondering as to what the Andhra Government was doing, and that too repeatedly. Was it just being audacious and proud—‘I am the State. Who can come in the way of what I decree?’ Or was it being cleverer than we imagine? Was it the case that it did not really care whether or not it lived up to its promise of giving reservations to Muslims and, therefore, did not care that it was going about the matter in a way that was certain to be struck down by the courts?

Second, the same question arises with the new announcements that have been made on behalf of the Congress now. The occasion speaks volumes: elections in U.P. are round the corner, and the Congress is wooing the Muslims again. Similarly, while the largesse will be camouflaged in the well-known ways, the fact is under the promise the Congress has made nine per cent reservations are to be set aside for the Muslims. That is clearly based on religion—something explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Is the Party again counting on amenable judges? Or is cynicism in command again? Who cares if the courts strike down the promise later? By that time those who have to be fooled, would have been fooled; what is to be won, would have been won.

(Extracted from the expanded edition of Arun Shourie’s FALLING OVER BACKWARDS, that is being published by HarperCollins in April, 2012)

Uttar Pradesh goes to polls and the Congress is wooing Muslims again, promising 9% quota. Clearly, it hasn’t drawn any lessons from its similar move in Andhra Pradesh. Thrice, the court turned it down but the government brazened it out. So who cares if the courts strike down the latest promise too? By that time those who have to be fooled, would have been fooled; what’s to be won, would have been won. Exclusive excerpts from the expanded edition of Arun Shourie’s Falling Over Backwards, to be published by HarperCollins in April 2012 are on The Indian Express website.

Shourie also said the judgment explodes the myth that some ministers in the UPA government had been spreading that there was no reason to cancel the licences.

"It is an excellent judgment and clear cut. There is a very important lesson for corporate houses also. They must adhere to a code of self-denial. When one of them succeeds in suborning a minister, then the sins pile up and eventually the mountain collapses and the whole set suffers," Shourie said.

He also slammed communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal's statement that the revenue loss happened due to the policies initiated by the NDA government and the UPA government followed the policies of the NDA government.

"They deliberately followed no policy and no procedures because if they followed those policies (NDA's) they could not have done the extra-curricular things which they did," Shourie said.

"Which policy or procedure of the NDA were they following when they changed the cut off date from Oct 1 to September 25," the BJP leader said referring to the changes in the cut off -date for 2G spectrum licences.

He said the licences which were cancelled by the Supreme Court on Thursday were issued by the UPA and not by the NDA.